Live data from Hacker News

SpaceX cleared for US military launches

bbc.co.uk

21–30 of 118 posts

Re: SpaceX cleared for US military launches

#21

Somewhat ironic that Elon Musk's SpaceX whose ultimate goal is to make life multi-planetary, is now collaborating with agents that may as well be responsible for triggering a Kessler syndrome. Not to mention the fact their business very much implies the termination of human life -- if for the greater good that is left for discussion on a case by case basis.

Pecunia non olet.

Re: SpaceX cleared for US military launches

#22

Somewhat ironic that Elon Musk's SpaceX whose ultimate goal is to make life multi-planetary, is now collaborating with agents that may as well be responsible for triggering a Kessler syndrome. Not to mention the fact their business very much implies the termination of human life -- if for the greater good that is left for discussion on a case by case basis.

"their business very much implies the termination of human life" .. you are assuming a perfect world where no other entity wants to harm human life. Also, GPS satellites were created for the military. They are fundamental for our daily lives around the world now.

Don't forget how much better the GPS could have been without the military putting the breaks on civilian uses and competitors: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_%28satellite_navigation...

Re: SpaceX cleared for US military launches

#23
post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not seeing the connection to the F-35. I guess you know there was a competition for the right to build the JSF. Both aircraft met all the requirements for the competition. So can you please clarify?

The F-35 continuously overruns budgets and gets more and more money poured into it. I think this is the what is being referred to.

It has a history of overrunning budgets, yes, but the per-aircraft cost is declining and should continue to decline. I thought parent might have been referring to budget issues but I'm not really grasping how that's relevant.

Re: SpaceX cleared for US military launches

#24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"their business very much implies the termination of human life" .. you are assuming a perfect world where no other entity wants to harm human life. Also, GPS satellites were created for the military. They are fundamental for our daily lives around the world now.

Don't forget how much better the GPS could have been without the military putting the breaks on civilian uses and competitors: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_%28satellite_navigation...

A free service to the world, paid for by American tax payers out of the military budget. Kind of hard to complain.

Re: SpaceX cleared for US military launches

#25

Is anyone else becoming a touch bothered by the large number of BBC news articles that are being submitted to Hacker News? I love the BBC and BBC News is - for the most part - very good. However, the articles on their website are often lacking in detail and when talking about technology, they are often wrong or show a misunderstanding on the behalf of the reporter. The BBC News definitely has a place - I'm just not s…

Right, submitting them isn't so much an issue because they can get flagged or just not up-voted. I don't often view the "new" articles list anymore. Most often, I feel like I'm wasting my time unless I want to help by up-voting the relatively good articles.

Re: SpaceX cleared for US military launches

#26
post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The F-35 continuously overruns budgets and gets more and more money poured into it. I think this is the what is being referred to.

It has a history of overrunning budgets, yes, but the per-aircraft cost is declining and should continue to decline. I thought parent might have been referring to budget issues but I'm not really grasping how that's relevant.

The per-aircraft cost is still 3x or more that of the F/A-18, and the costs of operating it are also dramatically higher. http://breakingdefense.com/2014/09/gao-draft-slams-f-35-on-u...

Re: SpaceX cleared for US military launches

#27
post #3

I like the old school dogma underlying the whole thing. Russia is bad, private enterprise is good, the US wants to put weapons in space, and Michael Jackson is rocking the world with Thriller.

The article doesn't go into much detail. In this case, Russia is "bad" because of the uncertainty of the relationship relying on something so important to be considered national interests. The decision to develop rockets at home was made around the time when someone in Russia made a comment to the effect of "maybe they should use trampolines to get into space."

Re: SpaceX cleared for US military launches

#28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't forget how much better the GPS could have been without the military putting the breaks on civilian uses and competitors: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_%28satellite_navigation...

A free service to the world, paid for by American tax payers out of the military budget. Kind of hard to complain.

I can complain because it prevented (or significantly delayed) much better services through some arm twisting and corruption paid for by American tax payers out of the military budget.

Re: SpaceX cleared for US military launches

#29

Is anyone else becoming a touch bothered by the large number of BBC news articles that are being submitted to Hacker News? I love the BBC and BBC News is - for the most part - very good. However, the articles on their website are often lacking in detail and when talking about technology, they are often wrong or show a misunderstanding on the behalf of the reporter. The BBC News definitely has a place - I'm just not s…

Not necessarily statistically significant, but of the past 1000 articles submitted:

      8 (bbc.co.uk)
      9 (techcrunch.com)
     10 (arstechnica.com)
     14 (nytimes.com)
     14 (theguardian.com)
     16 (washingtonpost.com)
     16 (youtube.com)
     18 (wsj.com)
     32 (medium.com)
     46 (github.com)
Of the past 10,000:

     40 (kickstarter.com)
     40 (reddit.com)
     40 (theatlantic.com)
     44 (forbes.com)
     46 (bloomberg.com)
     46 (securityaffairs.co)
     47 (theverge.com)
     56 (bbc.co.uk)
     62 (washingtonpost.com)
     68 (arstechnica.com)
     69 (bbc.com)
     70 (businessinsider.com)
     74 (wired.com)
     82 (wikipedia.org)
    102 (wsj.com)
    105 (theguardian.com)
    157 (nytimes.com)
    159 (techcrunch.com)
    163 (youtube.com)
    339 (medium.com)
    485 (github.com)
In case you're wondering, I have a file of all submissions listing ID, userid, URL, and title. Then I did this:

    $ tail -n 10000 records   \
        | gawk '{print $NF}'  \
        | sort                \
        | uniq -c             \
        | sort -n             \
        | grep -n .           \
        | tac                 \
        | head -21

Re: SpaceX cleared for US military launches

#30
post #2

So really this is a more of necessity not to encourage competition. They need a replacement for the Russian rocket engines and SpaceX is the only good alternative.

I believe at first, SpaceX was squeezed out. SpaceX sued the government as choosing a monopoly. The government then went back on that to allow SpaceX to play.

There has been a lot of commentary in the news as to why SpaceX may not have been chosen. They don't have the track record that the current "monopoly" has. Even though SpaceX can deliver cheaper, these loads aren't nearly as price sensitive as commercial loads. SpaceX hasn't yet shown they can deal with increased load of launches.

Post reply on HN